Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #36666 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-07-19 21:46 +0100 |
| Last post | 2021-07-20 14:17 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 525 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-19 21:46 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-19 14:03 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-07-20 21:06 +0200
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 13:43 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 13:56 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 14:16 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 14:50 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 22:33 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 23:30 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-21 13:17 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-22 13:35 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-22 22:10 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 14:22 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-23 14:30 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-23 23:15 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 15:28 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-23 16:49 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 16:09 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-24 02:34 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-04 21:53 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-04 21:54 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-08-05 15:37 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-05 17:08 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-08-05 11:41 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-08-05 11:48 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-08-05 20:30 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 13:55 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-08-05 15:51 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-08-05 23:20 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 13:53 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-05 22:21 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 15:42 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 15:48 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 15:49 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 15:52 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 21:58 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-23 16:10 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 16:14 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-23 16:40 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-24 12:50 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-24 00:54 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 16:59 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 00:42 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 12:55 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-25 13:13 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 14:08 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-24 18:07 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 01:50 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-24 20:58 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 04:03 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 04:22 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-25 13:34 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 17:14 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 10:40 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-25 13:10 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-25 11:31 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-25 13:22 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-25 12:43 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-25 12:25 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 12:46 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-25 13:04 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-25 16:58 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 20:38 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 20:52 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 13:54 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ paradox rather than contradiction ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-25 22:53 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ paradox rather than contradiction ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-25 21:40 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ paradox rather than contradiction ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-25 23:09 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 09:20 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 07:40 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 10:09 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 11:41 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 11:00 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 14:40 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 15:29 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-26 11:16 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 13:57 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 13:55 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 15:34 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 14:53 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 16:01 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 19:14 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 18:21 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 20:03 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 19:24 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 20:30 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 20:34 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 22:18 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 21:24 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 22:31 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 21:55 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 23:39 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 22:59 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 10:27 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 22:22 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-27 02:42 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 10:24 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-27 08:54 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( finally quit lying ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 11:05 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( finally quit lying ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-27 09:29 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 12:07 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-27 11:17 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 13:29 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-27 11:47 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 14:10 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-27 12:58 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-28 16:23 +0100
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 11:01 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-28 09:25 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-28 21:38 +0100
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 16:14 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 16:20 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-28 15:04 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-29 00:33 +0100
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-27 11:16 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 12:31 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-27 13:42 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 17:20 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 22:11 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-27 21:39 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 09:09 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 09:31 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 11:38 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 10:08 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 13:35 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 12:47 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 14:07 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 12:56 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 17:25 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 22:25 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 21:36 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 23:09 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 21:50 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 23:57 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 23:10 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 13:07 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-29 11:52 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-29 13:52 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 22:35 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 12:40 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 15:06 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-28 13:35 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 17:36 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 22:51 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 21:08 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 22:15 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 23:31 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 23:00 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 12:39 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-29 12:15 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-29 13:50 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 22:18 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 13:15 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-29 12:25 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-29 13:55 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 17:50 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-29 16:58 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 18:27 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-29 18:25 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 19:54 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-29 18:08 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-29 19:25 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 23:34 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-29 22:44 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 20:42 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-30 18:57 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 21:08 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-30 20:54 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 09:14 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-31 08:02 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 10:20 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 08:41 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 12:00 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 11:25 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 13:52 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 12:14 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 14:41 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 12:54 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 15:39 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 15:11 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-31 15:37 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 08:26 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 11:35 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 11:31 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 13:57 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 12:23 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ][ How can H ignore own behavior? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 14:52 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ][ How can H ignore own behavior? ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 13:02 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ][ How can H ignore own behavior? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 15:43 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ][ How can H ignore own behavior? ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 15:18 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-30 08:54 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 10:58 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-30 13:23 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-29 16:15 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 09:34 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-28 02:41 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 08:56 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 09:37 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-28 22:04 +0100
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 16:22 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-28 15:06 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-28 21:54 +0100
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-27 11:21 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 21:17 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 20:25 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 19:36 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 18:03 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 21:28 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 21:46 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 23:42 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-26 01:08 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-25 18:20 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 09:32 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 07:57 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 09:57 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-27 02:17 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 20:41 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 19:57 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 09:38 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 08:03 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-27 00:48 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 20:06 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 19:40 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-28 22:44 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 17:08 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 15:22 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 18:21 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 20:52 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-29 00:22 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 18:35 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-29 01:58 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 20:54 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 20:56 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 01:30 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 20:00 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-29 18:11 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 02:52 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 21:08 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 12:39 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 09:38 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 20:30 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 21:28 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-29 19:38 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 13:39 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 09:54 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 20:58 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 20:16 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-31 23:08 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 21:20 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-01 11:54 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-01 05:12 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-01 13:41 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-01 07:25 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-01 16:30 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-01 11:41 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-01 20:26 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-01 14:45 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-01 13:28 -0700
Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-01 11:02 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-01 10:02 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-01 08:21 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-01 17:00 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 10:48 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-04 19:51 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 17:31 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-05 00:23 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 22:33 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 22:56 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-05 23:12 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 20:17 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-05 20:30 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-06 03:36 +0100
Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 21:50 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-08 01:34 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 19:05 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-01 09:45 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-01 08:24 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-01 22:45 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-01 22:12 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-02 20:10 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-02 15:53 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-03 01:11 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-02 19:55 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-03 02:45 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-02 21:11 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-02 21:57 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-04 13:53 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 11:15 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-04 20:22 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 17:38 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-05 00:22 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 22:18 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 23:05 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 02:02 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 07:07 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-05 20:35 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-05 23:15 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 20:48 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-06 03:35 +0100
Page 6 conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0 is correct. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 21:46 -0500
Re: Page 6 conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0 is correct. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-08 01:38 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-05 22:01 -0500
Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 22:13 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-05 22:29 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 20:21 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 22:23 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-03 21:44 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 21:56 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 23:00 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-08-03 21:12 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 22:16 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 23:25 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 22:36 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 23:38 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 23:55 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 23:36 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 10:14 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 21:05 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-04 07:13 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ]( Honest Dialogue ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 10:11 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 20:29 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-03 22:35 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-04 19:37 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 15:37 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-04 23:23 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 22:37 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 22:48 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-05 23:14 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 20:21 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-05 20:41 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-06 03:36 +0100
Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 21:54 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-05 22:37 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 22:44 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-08-05 22:51 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-08 01:34 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-09 17:32 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-09 21:14 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 01:42 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-10 19:46 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-10 20:06 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 02:41 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-10 20:53 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 03:26 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-10 21:40 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 16:04 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 10:10 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 10:15 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 00:04 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 18:16 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 02:20 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 21:03 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 21:09 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben's key param agreement ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 21:08 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-08-11 17:32 -0600
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 18:40 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-08-11 23:11 -0600
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-12 01:36 -0700
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 07:24 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-12 08:40 -0700
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 10:50 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-13 01:58 -0700
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 08:30 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-12 22:01 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 16:15 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 10:29 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. (fixed type) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-10 21:42 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. // fixed typo (link added) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-10 23:36 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 09:28 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 09:58 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 17:10 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 11:52 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 01:35 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 19:40 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 19:44 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 21:00 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 15:36 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 22:10 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 16:26 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 00:00 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 18:28 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 18:33 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 01:26 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 19:49 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 02:05 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 20:19 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-12 21:44 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 02:49 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 21:20 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 10:01 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 08:35 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 21:20 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 15:56 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 22:28 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 16:33 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 23:06 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 17:12 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 23:25 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 17:47 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2021-08-13 16:54 -0700
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 22:35 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-14 13:22 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-13 20:41 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 17:24 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 01:53 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 20:14 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 02:51 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 21:21 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-12 22:57 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 09:53 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 08:31 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-12 21:38 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-12 22:09 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 14:53 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 01:01 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 19:26 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 02:28 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 18:07 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 02:35 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Halting Problem is solved for Ĥ on ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 21:14 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-12 07:49 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-10 23:40 -0700
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 11:48 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-11 04:09 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-01 22:56 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-01 22:13 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-02 20:11 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 20:38 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-31 15:47 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 21:52 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 02:18 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 21:05 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 12:00 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 09:35 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 20:22 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 19:42 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-30 18:27 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-31 22:54 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 16:57 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-31 15:48 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-01 11:39 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-01 22:17 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-01 20:36 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-02 17:31 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-02 13:16 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-02 13:25 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-03 01:20 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-02 20:01 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-02 22:03 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-02 22:29 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 08:00 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-03 07:33 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 10:21 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 11:11 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 14:26 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 14:08 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 15:47 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 14:56 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 16:03 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 15:26 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 16:50 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 16:35 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 19:42 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 19:00 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 20:24 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 21:00 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 22:30 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 22:00 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 23:03 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-03 22:08 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-04 10:48 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-03 21:52 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? )[ Only: H(P,P)==0 ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 09:38 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? )[ Only: H(P,P)==0 ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 20:43 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? )[ Only: H(P,P)==0 ][ André refuses an honest dialogue ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 09:04 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? )[ Only: H(P,P)==0 ][ André refuses an honest dialogue ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-05 20:41 -0500
H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct [ André refuses an honest dialogue ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 09:07 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-03 07:36 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-31 23:53 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 21:47 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 20:07 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 09:46 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 08:05 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-25 21:32 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 15:10 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 15:26 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-25 16:56 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 23:21 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 23:44 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 17:18 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 19:15 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 23:04 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2021-07-26 11:06 +0000
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-26 14:17 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-26 06:29 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-26 14:32 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-26 07:08 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-26 15:36 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-26 08:32 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-26 18:08 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-26 11:38 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-26 19:31 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-26 13:42 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-26 22:49 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-26 23:57 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-27 13:47 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-26 23:16 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-27 12:10 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-27 12:48 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-28 17:25 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-28 11:32 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-26 15:13 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-24 20:35 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 10:54 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 07:10 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 12:56 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-22 14:52 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 14:20 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-23 14:34 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 05:46 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-21 14:12 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 06:27 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-21 16:28 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-20 15:14 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 14:17 -0700
Page 18 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 … 27 Next page →
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-10 20:06 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. |
| Message-ID | <Z6ednWt7SpIIv478nZ2dnUU7-WHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37768 |
On 8/10/2021 7:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 8/7/2021 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 8/5/2021 9:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 8/5/2021 5:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The question is not: Does Ĥ halt on its input? >>>>>>> Yes it is. >>>>>> >>>>>> The question is: >>>>>> Does the Ĥ specified by the first ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt on its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ? >>>>>> The ansswer to this question is provably no! >>>>> The question is: does Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt. It does: >>>>> >>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn THIS IS NOT A CONTRADICTION >>>>> Indeed. There is no contradiction. Just an Ĥ that does not meet Linz >>>>> spec. >>>> >>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. >>>> Because it is correct it meets the Linz spec. >>> I find it startling that you think that, but then it seems you don't yet >>> know what the key words mean: >>> >>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>> means if the execution of the machine of the first ⟨Ĥ⟩ on its input of >>>> the seocond ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt then ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> No. Would you like to know "what M applied to wM does not halt" means? >>> Do you need help to see that "Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn" is clearly a case of "M >>> applied to wM halts"? >> >> the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem >> is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w, >> does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a >> computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317). > > Yes. I was offering to help you understand the key words in that text. > >> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn > > You've missed off the key lines yet again. Is that deliberate? They > are the lines that show you are wrong so I am suspicious that you keep > omitting them. > >> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ the description of the Turing Machine and its >> input are specified as: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ for the embedded halt decider at Ĥ.qx. > > Ungrammatical. > >> When Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn this is not a final state of the simulated >> input it is a final state of the executed Ĥ. > > Yes. You don't seem to know why that's wrong. What is your basis for believing that is wrong? > If you'd like to know, > ask me questions. If you want to keep just saying things for the fun of > it, you are doing just fine without any help. > -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-11 02:41 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. |
| Message-ID | <87pmukiwr5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37770 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 8/10/2021 7:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 8/7/2021 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 8/5/2021 9:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 8/5/2021 5:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The question is not: Does Ĥ halt on its input? >>>>>>>> Yes it is. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The question is: >>>>>>> Does the Ĥ specified by the first ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt on its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ? >>>>>>> The ansswer to this question is provably no! >>>>>> The question is: does Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt. It does: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn THIS IS NOT A CONTRADICTION >>>>>> Indeed. There is no contradiction. Just an Ĥ that does not meet Linz >>>>>> spec. >>>>> >>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. >>>>> Because it is correct it meets the Linz spec. >>>> I find it startling that you think that, but then it seems you don't yet >>>> know what the key words mean: >>>> >>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>>> means if the execution of the machine of the first ⟨Ĥ⟩ on its input of >>>>> the seocond ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt then ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>> No. Would you like to know "what M applied to wM does not halt" means? >>>> Do you need help to see that "Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn" is clearly a case of "M >>>> applied to wM halts"? >>> >>> the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem >>> is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w, >>> does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a >>> computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317). >> Yes. I was offering to help you understand the key words in that text. >> >>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> You've missed off the key lines yet again. Is that deliberate? They >> are the lines that show you are wrong so I am suspicious that you keep >> omitting them. >> >>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ the description of the Turing Machine and its >>> input are specified as: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ for the embedded halt decider at Ĥ.qx. >> Ungrammatical. >> >>> When Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn this is not a final state of the simulated >>> input it is a final state of the executed Ĥ. >> Yes. You don't seem to know why that's wrong. > > What is your basis for believing that is wrong? Ah, a question about what I'm saying. I can help there. The basis is what Linz says about Ĥ. He says that (translating to your notation) Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn should be the case "if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt". But, as you can see, your Ĥ does halt when applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ (qn is a halting or final state). Your Ĥ is not doing what it should in this one crucial case. It is trivial to write a TM J from which a Ĵ can be derived that has the properties of your Ĥ. Every student learning this material for the first time should be able to come up with one a few minutes. There is nothing interesting about a TM with Ĵ.q0 ⟨Ĵ⟩ ⊢* Ĵ.qn if Ĵ applied to ⟨Ĵ⟩ halts. What you can't have (and you don't have) is a TM that behaves like Linz's in this one particular case: Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-10 20:53 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. |
| Message-ID | <5c6dnbn2gMMIsI78nZ2dnUU7-dnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37773 |
On 8/10/2021 8:41 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 8/10/2021 7:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 8/7/2021 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/5/2021 9:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/5/2021 5:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The question is not: Does Ĥ halt on its input?
>>>>>>>>> Yes it is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The question is:
>>>>>>>> Does the Ĥ specified by the first ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt on its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ?
>>>>>>>> The ansswer to this question is provably no!
>>>>>>> The question is: does Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt. It does:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn THIS IS NOT A CONTRADICTION
>>>>>>> Indeed. There is no contradiction. Just an Ĥ that does not meet Linz
>>>>>>> spec.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction.
>>>>>> Because it is correct it meets the Linz spec.
>>>>> I find it startling that you think that, but then it seems you don't yet
>>>>> know what the key words mean:
>>>>>
>>>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt
>>>>>> means if the execution of the machine of the first ⟨Ĥ⟩ on its input of
>>>>>> the seocond ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt then ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>> No. Would you like to know "what M applied to wM does not halt" means?
>>>>> Do you need help to see that "Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn" is clearly a case of "M
>>>>> applied to wM halts"?
>>>>
>>>> the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem
>>>> is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w,
>>>> does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a
>>>> computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317).
>>> Yes. I was offering to help you understand the key words in that text.
>>>
>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>> You've missed off the key lines yet again. Is that deliberate? They
>>> are the lines that show you are wrong so I am suspicious that you keep
>>> omitting them.
>>>
>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ the description of the Turing Machine and its
>>>> input are specified as: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ for the embedded halt decider at Ĥ.qx.
>>> Ungrammatical.
>>>
>>>> When Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn this is not a final state of the simulated
>>>> input it is a final state of the executed Ĥ.
>>> Yes. You don't seem to know why that's wrong.
>>
>> What is your basis for believing that is wrong?
>
> Ah, a question about what I'm saying. I can help there. The basis is
> what Linz says about Ĥ. He says that (translating to your notation)
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>
> should be the case "if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt". But, as you can
> see, your Ĥ does halt when applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ (qn is a halting or final
> state). Your Ĥ is not doing what it should in this one crucial case.
>
the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem
is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w,
does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a
computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317).
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
But you are ignoring:
(a) The copying step.
(b) The point in the execution trace where the halt decider is located.
(c) That the halt decider only takes the description of a machine as input.
(d) That the halting question is applied to the machine of this
description: AKA the first param to: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
(e) that the first param to: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts
> It is trivial to write a TM J from which a Ĵ can be derived that has the
> properties of your Ĥ. Every student learning this material for the first
> time should be able to come up with one a few minutes. There is nothing
> interesting about a TM with
>
> Ĵ.q0 ⟨Ĵ⟩ ⊢* Ĵ.qn
> if Ĵ applied to ⟨Ĵ⟩ halts.
>
> What you can't have (and you don't have) is a TM that behaves like
> Linz's in this one particular case:
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
> if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt.
>
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-11 03:26 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. |
| Message-ID | <87eeb0iuo1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37776 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 8/10/2021 8:41 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 8/10/2021 7:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 8/7/2021 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 8/5/2021 9:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 8/5/2021 5:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The question is not: Does Ĥ halt on its input? >>>>>>>>>> Yes it is. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The question is: >>>>>>>>> Does the Ĥ specified by the first ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt on its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ? >>>>>>>>> The ansswer to this question is provably no! >>>>>>>> The question is: does Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt. It does: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn THIS IS NOT A CONTRADICTION >>>>>>>> Indeed. There is no contradiction. Just an Ĥ that does not meet Linz >>>>>>>> spec. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. >>>>>>> Because it is correct it meets the Linz spec. >>>>>> I find it startling that you think that, but then it seems you don't yet >>>>>> know what the key words mean: >>>>>> >>>>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>>>>> means if the execution of the machine of the first ⟨Ĥ⟩ on its input of >>>>>>> the seocond ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt then ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>> No. Would you like to know "what M applied to wM does not halt" means? >>>>>> Do you need help to see that "Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn" is clearly a case of "M >>>>>> applied to wM halts"? >>>>> >>>>> the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem >>>>> is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w, >>>>> does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a >>>>> computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317). >>>> Yes. I was offering to help you understand the key words in that text. >>>> >>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>> You've missed off the key lines yet again. Is that deliberate? They >>>> are the lines that show you are wrong so I am suspicious that you keep >>>> omitting them. >>>> >>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ the description of the Turing Machine and its >>>>> input are specified as: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ for the embedded halt decider at Ĥ.qx. >>>> Ungrammatical. >>>> >>>>> When Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn this is not a final state of the simulated >>>>> input it is a final state of the executed Ĥ. >>>> Yes. You don't seem to know why that's wrong. >>> >>> What is your basis for believing that is wrong? >> Ah, a question about what I'm saying. I can help there. The basis is >> what Linz says about Ĥ. He says that (translating to your notation) >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> should be the case "if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt". But, as you can >> see, your Ĥ does halt when applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ (qn is a halting or final >> state). Your Ĥ is not doing what it should in this one crucial case. >> > > the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem > is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w, > does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a > computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317). and so on. Same old stuff. I'm sorry my explanation did not help at all. I'm happy to answer any other questions you might have if you think it might help you understand what I (and Linz) are saying. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-10 21:40 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. |
| Message-ID | <2-adncuMeNUVpY78nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37777 |
On 8/10/2021 9:26 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 8/10/2021 8:41 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 8/10/2021 7:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 8/7/2021 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 8/5/2021 9:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 8/5/2021 5:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The question is not: Does Ĥ halt on its input? >>>>>>>>>>> Yes it is. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The question is: >>>>>>>>>> Does the Ĥ specified by the first ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt on its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ? >>>>>>>>>> The ansswer to this question is provably no! >>>>>>>>> The question is: does Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt. It does: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn THIS IS NOT A CONTRADICTION >>>>>>>>> Indeed. There is no contradiction. Just an Ĥ that does not meet Linz >>>>>>>>> spec. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. >>>>>>>> Because it is correct it meets the Linz spec. >>>>>>> I find it startling that you think that, but then it seems you don't yet >>>>>>> know what the key words mean: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>>>>>> means if the execution of the machine of the first ⟨Ĥ⟩ on its input of >>>>>>>> the seocond ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt then ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>> No. Would you like to know "what M applied to wM does not halt" means? >>>>>>> Do you need help to see that "Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn" is clearly a case of "M >>>>>>> applied to wM halts"? >>>>>> >>>>>> the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem >>>>>> is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w, >>>>>> does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a >>>>>> computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317). >>>>> Yes. I was offering to help you understand the key words in that text. >>>>> >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>> You've missed off the key lines yet again. Is that deliberate? They >>>>> are the lines that show you are wrong so I am suspicious that you keep >>>>> omitting them. >>>>> >>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ the description of the Turing Machine and its >>>>>> input are specified as: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ for the embedded halt decider at Ĥ.qx. >>>>> Ungrammatical. >>>>> >>>>>> When Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn this is not a final state of the simulated >>>>>> input it is a final state of the executed Ĥ. >>>>> Yes. You don't seem to know why that's wrong. >>>> >>>> What is your basis for believing that is wrong? >>> Ah, a question about what I'm saying. I can help there. The basis is >>> what Linz says about Ĥ. He says that (translating to your notation) >>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> should be the case "if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt". But, as you can >>> see, your Ĥ does halt when applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ (qn is a halting or final >>> state). Your Ĥ is not doing what it should in this one crucial case. >>> >> >> the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem >> is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w, >> does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a >> computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317). > > and so on. Same old stuff. > > I'm sorry my explanation did not help at all. I'm happy to answer any > other questions you might have if you think it might help you understand > what I (and Linz) are saying. I went point by point. If I am actually incorrect then you can go point by point and point out each individual error step by step. Of course everyone knows that this is impossible if I am totally correct. - the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem - is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w, - does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a - computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317). The input to H will be the description (encoded in some form) of M, say WM, as well as the input w. (Linz:1990:318) H.q0 WM w ⊢* Ĥ.qn becomes H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn Can you admit when you are wrong when you really are wrong? -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-11 16:04 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. |
| Message-ID | <87o8a4ggzf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37778 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 8/10/2021 9:26 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 8/10/2021 8:41 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 8/10/2021 7:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 8/7/2021 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 8/5/2021 9:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/5/2021 5:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The question is not: Does Ĥ halt on its input? >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it is. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The question is: >>>>>>>>>>> Does the Ĥ specified by the first ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt on its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ? >>>>>>>>>>> The ansswer to this question is provably no! >>>>>>>>>> The question is: does Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt. It does: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn THIS IS NOT A CONTRADICTION >>>>>>>>>> Indeed. There is no contradiction. Just an Ĥ that does not meet Linz >>>>>>>>>> spec. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. >>>>>>>>> Because it is correct it meets the Linz spec. >>>>>>>> I find it startling that you think that, but then it seems you don't yet >>>>>>>> know what the key words mean: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>>>>>>> means if the execution of the machine of the first ⟨Ĥ⟩ on its input of >>>>>>>>> the seocond ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt then ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>> No. Would you like to know "what M applied to wM does not halt" means? >>>>>>>> Do you need help to see that "Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn" is clearly a case of "M >>>>>>>> applied to wM halts"? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem >>>>>>> is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w, >>>>>>> does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a >>>>>>> computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317). >>>>>> Yes. I was offering to help you understand the key words in that text. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>> You've missed off the key lines yet again. Is that deliberate? They >>>>>> are the lines that show you are wrong so I am suspicious that you keep >>>>>> omitting them. >>>>>> >>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ the description of the Turing Machine and its >>>>>>> input are specified as: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ for the embedded halt decider at Ĥ.qx. >>>>>> Ungrammatical. >>>>>> >>>>>>> When Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn this is not a final state of the simulated >>>>>>> input it is a final state of the executed Ĥ. >>>>>> Yes. You don't seem to know why that's wrong. >>>>> >>>>> What is your basis for believing that is wrong? >>>> Ah, a question about what I'm saying. I can help there. The basis is >>>> what Linz says about Ĥ. He says that (translating to your notation) >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>> should be the case "if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt". But, as you can >>>> see, your Ĥ does halt when applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ (qn is a halting or final >>>> state). Your Ĥ is not doing what it should in this one crucial case. >>>> >>> >>> the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem >>> is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w, >>> does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a >>> computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317). >> and so on. Same old stuff. >> I'm sorry my explanation did not help at all. I'm happy to answer any >> other questions you might have if you think it might help you understand >> what I (and Linz) are saying. > > I went point by point. If I am actually incorrect then you can go > point by point and point out each individual error step by step. You fail at the first hurdle. You can't hope to persuade anyone that an add function with add(2, 3) == 9 is operating as specified simply by detailing, step by step, exactly how you implement the wrong behaviour. In your case, it's simply that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn (via Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as you pointlessly keep insisting) when Linz says it should not. Your add function is entirely correct in that is does exactly what you intend it to do. As far as I am concerned there is no significant error in how you arrive at add(2, 3) == 9. The problem is that Linz says your code should add numbers and not do whatever it is your code does with 100% correctness. Do you follow? > Of course > everyone knows that this is impossible if I am totally correct. Then stop wasting time and try to publish! You'll need lots of time to explain away why every editor simply laughs at the paper. > H.q0 WM w ⊢* Ĥ.qn > becomes > H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn Yes, we all know that. It's exactly why your Ĥ does not meet Linz's specification (for this case -- you don't claim to have a halt decider). > Can you admit when you are wrong when you really are wrong? Yes. I am wrong all the time. In this case I'm having trouble working out how I could be clearer about your Ĥ. Maybe if you didn't keep removing the key text from Linz's explanations it might sink in? -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-11 10:10 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. |
| Message-ID | <XfGdnc2wcvv6dY78nZ2dnUU7-fednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37789 |
On 8/11/2021 10:04 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 8/10/2021 9:26 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 8/10/2021 8:41 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 8/10/2021 7:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 8/7/2021 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 8/5/2021 9:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/5/2021 5:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question is not: Does Ĥ halt on its input? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it is. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The question is: >>>>>>>>>>>> Does the Ĥ specified by the first ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt on its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ? >>>>>>>>>>>> The ansswer to this question is provably no! >>>>>>>>>>> The question is: does Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt. It does: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn THIS IS NOT A CONTRADICTION >>>>>>>>>>> Indeed. There is no contradiction. Just an Ĥ that does not meet Linz >>>>>>>>>>> spec. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. >>>>>>>>>> Because it is correct it meets the Linz spec. >>>>>>>>> I find it startling that you think that, but then it seems you don't yet >>>>>>>>> know what the key words mean: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>>>>>>>> means if the execution of the machine of the first ⟨Ĥ⟩ on its input of >>>>>>>>>> the seocond ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt then ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>>> No. Would you like to know "what M applied to wM does not halt" means? >>>>>>>>> Do you need help to see that "Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn" is clearly a case of "M >>>>>>>>> applied to wM halts"? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem >>>>>>>> is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w, >>>>>>>> does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a >>>>>>>> computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317). >>>>>>> Yes. I was offering to help you understand the key words in that text. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>> You've missed off the key lines yet again. Is that deliberate? They >>>>>>> are the lines that show you are wrong so I am suspicious that you keep >>>>>>> omitting them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ the description of the Turing Machine and its >>>>>>>> input are specified as: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ for the embedded halt decider at Ĥ.qx. >>>>>>> Ungrammatical. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn this is not a final state of the simulated >>>>>>>> input it is a final state of the executed Ĥ. >>>>>>> Yes. You don't seem to know why that's wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> What is your basis for believing that is wrong? >>>>> Ah, a question about what I'm saying. I can help there. The basis is >>>>> what Linz says about Ĥ. He says that (translating to your notation) >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>> should be the case "if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt". But, as you can >>>>> see, your Ĥ does halt when applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ (qn is a halting or final >>>>> state). Your Ĥ is not doing what it should in this one crucial case. >>>>> >>>> >>>> the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem >>>> is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w, >>>> does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a >>>> computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317). >>> and so on. Same old stuff. >>> I'm sorry my explanation did not help at all. I'm happy to answer any >>> other questions you might have if you think it might help you understand >>> what I (and Linz) are saying. >> >> I went point by point. If I am actually incorrect then you can go >> point by point and point out each individual error step by step. > > You fail at the first hurdle. You can't hope to persuade anyone that an > add function with add(2, 3) == 9 is operating as specified simply by > detailing, step by step, exactly how you implement the wrong behaviour. > In your case, it's simply that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn (via Ĥ.qx > ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as you pointlessly keep insisting) when Linz says it should not. > > Your add function is entirely correct in that is does exactly what you > intend it to do. As far as I am concerned there is no significant error > in how you arrive at add(2, 3) == 9. The problem is that Linz says your > code should add numbers and not do whatever it is your code does with > 100% correctness. Do you follow? > >> Of course >> everyone knows that this is impossible if I am totally correct. > > Then stop wasting time and try to publish! You'll need lots of time to > explain away why every editor simply laughs at the paper. > >> H.q0 WM w ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> becomes >> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn > > Yes, we all know that. It's exactly why your Ĥ does not meet Linz's > specification (for this case -- you don't claim to have a halt decider). > >> Can you admit when you are wrong when you really are wrong? > > Yes. I am wrong all the time. In this case I'm having trouble working > out how I could be clearer about your Ĥ. Maybe if you didn't keep > removing the key text from Linz's explanations it might sink in? > Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ if M applied to wM halts, and // M refers to the TM of the first wM parameter to Ĥ.qx Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn if M applied to wM does not halt // M refers to the TM of the first wM parameter to Ĥ.qx -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-11 10:15 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. |
| Message-ID | <XfGdncywcvvmdI78nZ2dnUU7-fednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37789 |
On 8/11/2021 10:04 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 8/10/2021 9:26 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 8/10/2021 8:41 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 8/10/2021 7:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 8/7/2021 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 8/5/2021 9:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/5/2021 5:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question is not: Does Ĥ halt on its input? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it is. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The question is: >>>>>>>>>>>> Does the Ĥ specified by the first ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt on its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ? >>>>>>>>>>>> The ansswer to this question is provably no! >>>>>>>>>>> The question is: does Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt. It does: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn THIS IS NOT A CONTRADICTION >>>>>>>>>>> Indeed. There is no contradiction. Just an Ĥ that does not meet Linz >>>>>>>>>>> spec. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. >>>>>>>>>> Because it is correct it meets the Linz spec. >>>>>>>>> I find it startling that you think that, but then it seems you don't yet >>>>>>>>> know what the key words mean: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>>>>>>>> means if the execution of the machine of the first ⟨Ĥ⟩ on its input of >>>>>>>>>> the seocond ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt then ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>>> No. Would you like to know "what M applied to wM does not halt" means? >>>>>>>>> Do you need help to see that "Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn" is clearly a case of "M >>>>>>>>> applied to wM halts"? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem >>>>>>>> is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w, >>>>>>>> does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a >>>>>>>> computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317). >>>>>>> Yes. I was offering to help you understand the key words in that text. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>> You've missed off the key lines yet again. Is that deliberate? They >>>>>>> are the lines that show you are wrong so I am suspicious that you keep >>>>>>> omitting them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ the description of the Turing Machine and its >>>>>>>> input are specified as: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ for the embedded halt decider at Ĥ.qx. >>>>>>> Ungrammatical. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn this is not a final state of the simulated >>>>>>>> input it is a final state of the executed Ĥ. >>>>>>> Yes. You don't seem to know why that's wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> What is your basis for believing that is wrong? >>>>> Ah, a question about what I'm saying. I can help there. The basis is >>>>> what Linz says about Ĥ. He says that (translating to your notation) >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>> should be the case "if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt". But, as you can >>>>> see, your Ĥ does halt when applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ (qn is a halting or final >>>>> state). Your Ĥ is not doing what it should in this one crucial case. >>>>> >>>> >>>> the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem >>>> is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w, >>>> does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a >>>> computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317). >>> and so on. Same old stuff. >>> I'm sorry my explanation did not help at all. I'm happy to answer any >>> other questions you might have if you think it might help you understand >>> what I (and Linz) are saying. >> >> I went point by point. If I am actually incorrect then you can go >> point by point and point out each individual error step by step. > > You fail at the first hurdle. You can't hope to persuade anyone that an > add function with add(2, 3) == 9 is operating as specified simply by > detailing, step by step, exactly how you implement the wrong behaviour. > In your case, it's simply that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn (via Ĥ.qx > ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as you pointlessly keep insisting) when Linz says it should not. > > Your add function is entirely correct in that is does exactly what you > intend it to do. As far as I am concerned there is no significant error > in how you arrive at add(2, 3) == 9. The problem is that Linz says your > code should add numbers and not do whatever it is your code does with > 100% correctness. Do you follow? > >> Of course >> everyone knows that this is impossible if I am totally correct. > > Then stop wasting time and try to publish! You'll need lots of time to > explain away why every editor simply laughs at the paper. > >> H.q0 WM w ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> becomes >> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn > > Yes, we all know that. It's exactly why your Ĥ does not meet Linz's > specification (for this case -- you don't claim to have a halt decider). > >> Can you admit when you are wrong when you really are wrong? > > Yes. I am wrong all the time. In this case I'm having trouble working > out how I could be clearer about your Ĥ. Maybe if you didn't keep > removing the key text from Linz's explanations it might sink in? > Pages of the Linz text to verify the above quotes in their full context: http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H The input to H will be the description (encoded in some form) of M, say WM, as well as the input w. (Linz:1990:318) Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ if M applied to wM halts, and // M refers to the TM of the first wM parameter to Ĥ.qx Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn if M applied to wM does not halt // M refers to the TM of the first wM parameter to Ĥ.qx https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-12 00:04 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. |
| Message-ID | <87v94bfus2.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37792 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 8/11/2021 10:04 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> I went point by point. If I am actually incorrect then you can go >>> point by point and point out each individual error step by step. >> You fail at the first hurdle. You can't hope to persuade anyone that an >> add function with add(2, 3) == 9 is operating as specified simply by >> detailing, step by step, exactly how you implement the wrong behaviour. >> In your case, it's simply that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn (via Ĥ.qx >> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as you pointlessly keep insisting) when Linz says it should not. >> Your add function is entirely correct in that is does exactly what you >> intend it to do. As far as I am concerned there is no significant error >> in how you arrive at add(2, 3) == 9. The problem is that Linz says your >> code should add numbers and not do whatever it is your code does with >> 100% correctness. Do you follow? >> >>> Of course >>> everyone knows that this is impossible if I am totally correct. >> Then stop wasting time and try to publish! You'll need lots of time to >> explain away why every editor simply laughs at the paper. >> >>> H.q0 WM w ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> becomes >>> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn >> Yes, we all know that. It's exactly why your Ĥ does not meet Linz's >> specification (for this case -- you don't claim to have a halt decider). >> >>> Can you admit when you are wrong when you really are wrong? >> Yes. I am wrong all the time. In this case I'm having trouble working >> out how I could be clearer about your Ĥ. Maybe if you didn't keep >> removing the key text from Linz's explanations it might sink in? >> > > Pages of the Linz text to verify the above quotes in their full context: > http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf > > PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H > PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H > PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H > PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H I see you are in "paste the same text" again mode. If you think I can help in any way, do let me know. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-11 18:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. |
| Message-ID | <GKSdnVVNYtzbx4n8nZ2dnUU7-THNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37798 |
On 8/11/2021 6:04 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 8/11/2021 10:04 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >>>> I went point by point. If I am actually incorrect then you can go >>>> point by point and point out each individual error step by step. >>> You fail at the first hurdle. You can't hope to persuade anyone that an >>> add function with add(2, 3) == 9 is operating as specified simply by >>> detailing, step by step, exactly how you implement the wrong behaviour. >>> In your case, it's simply that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn (via Ĥ.qx >>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as you pointlessly keep insisting) when Linz says it should not. >>> Your add function is entirely correct in that is does exactly what you >>> intend it to do. As far as I am concerned there is no significant error >>> in how you arrive at add(2, 3) == 9. The problem is that Linz says your >>> code should add numbers and not do whatever it is your code does with >>> 100% correctness. Do you follow? >>> >>>> Of course >>>> everyone knows that this is impossible if I am totally correct. >>> Then stop wasting time and try to publish! You'll need lots of time to >>> explain away why every editor simply laughs at the paper. >>> >>>> H.q0 WM w ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>> becomes >>>> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn >>> Yes, we all know that. It's exactly why your Ĥ does not meet Linz's >>> specification (for this case -- you don't claim to have a halt decider). >>> >>>> Can you admit when you are wrong when you really are wrong? >>> Yes. I am wrong all the time. In this case I'm having trouble working >>> out how I could be clearer about your Ĥ. Maybe if you didn't keep >>> removing the key text from Linz's explanations it might sink in? >>> >> >> Pages of the Linz text to verify the above quotes in their full context: >> http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf >> >> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H > > I see you are in "paste the same text" again mode. If you think I can > help in any way, do let me know. > I just noticed that you acknowledged that M refers to the TM represented by the first input parameter to Ĥ.qx wM wM so we can move to the next point: Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ if M applied to wM halts, and Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn // see highlighted portion of Linz text to confirm: if M applied to wM does not halt // M refers to the TM of the first wM parameter to Ĥ.qx Here is the overview of what I am claiming: Turing machine Ĥ is applied to its input ⟨Ĥ⟩. It copies this input such that this input and the copy of this input become the first and second parameters to the simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx. When Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ decides that the simulation of its first parameter on the input of its second parameter never halt it correctly transitions to its own final state of Ĥ.qn. It is easy to see that when the halt decider at Ĥ.qx is a simulating halt decider that there is an infinite cycle from Ĥ.qx to Ĥ.q0 that prevents the input from every reaching its final state. When we define halting as reaching a final state so that we can unequivocally divide computations that complete from those that are aborted, then we know that the input to Ĥ.qx never halts, thus making its halt status decison correct. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-12 02:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. |
| Message-ID | <8735rffoh2.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37800 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 8/11/2021 6:04 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 8/11/2021 10:04 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>>>> I went point by point. If I am actually incorrect then you can go >>>>> point by point and point out each individual error step by step. >>>> You fail at the first hurdle. You can't hope to persuade anyone that an >>>> add function with add(2, 3) == 9 is operating as specified simply by >>>> detailing, step by step, exactly how you implement the wrong behaviour. >>>> In your case, it's simply that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn (via Ĥ.qx >>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as you pointlessly keep insisting) when Linz says it should not. >>>> Your add function is entirely correct in that is does exactly what you >>>> intend it to do. As far as I am concerned there is no significant error >>>> in how you arrive at add(2, 3) == 9. The problem is that Linz says your >>>> code should add numbers and not do whatever it is your code does with >>>> 100% correctness. Do you follow? >>>> >>>>> Of course >>>>> everyone knows that this is impossible if I am totally correct. >>>> Then stop wasting time and try to publish! You'll need lots of time to >>>> explain away why every editor simply laughs at the paper. >>>> >>>>> H.q0 WM w ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>> becomes >>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn >>>> Yes, we all know that. It's exactly why your Ĥ does not meet Linz's >>>> specification (for this case -- you don't claim to have a halt decider). >>>> >>>>> Can you admit when you are wrong when you really are wrong? >>>> Yes. I am wrong all the time. In this case I'm having trouble working >>>> out how I could be clearer about your Ĥ. Maybe if you didn't keep >>>> removing the key text from Linz's explanations it might sink in? >>>> >>> >>> Pages of the Linz text to verify the above quotes in their full context: >>> http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf >>> >>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >> I see you are in "paste the same text" again mode. If you think I can >> help in any way, do let me know. > > I just noticed that you acknowledged that M refers to the TM > represented by the first input parameter to Ĥ.qx wM wM Did I? Oh dear. It's garbage. Where did I "acknowledge" it? I'd like to go back and point out that it's mathematical junk. > so we can move to the next point: > > Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ > if M applied to wM halts, and This is just a metaphorical math poem. You've taken a mathematical statement and substituted for only some on the occurrences of a variable. That is a schoolboy error. Maybe you confused agreement with "can't be bothered to go of on a tangent about a math poem". I certainly let many meaningless things you write slip by unremarked upon. There are not enough hours in the day to point out all your mistakes. > Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn // see highlighted portion of Linz text > to confirm: > if M applied to wM does not halt // M refers to the TM of the first wM > parameter to Ĥ.qx Linz requires that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn if, and only if, Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. Unlike your garbage, this makes sense because all occurrences of M and the derived wM have now been substituted for actual values -- your Ĥ and its encoding. > Here is the overview of what I am claiming: > Turing machine Ĥ is applied to its input ⟨Ĥ⟩. Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ > It copies this input such that this input and the copy of this input > become the first and second parameters to the simulating halt decider > at Ĥ.qx. ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ > When Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ decides that the simulation of its first parameter > on the input of its second parameter never halt it correctly > transitions to its own final state of Ĥ.qn. ⊢* Ĥ.qn None of which (other than your poor use of technical terms) has been in doubt for months. > It is easy to see that when the halt decider at Ĥ.qx is a simulating > halt decider that there is an infinite cycle from Ĥ.qx to Ĥ.q0 that > prevents the input from every reaching its final state. If Ĥ were not written as you have chosen to write it -- if it were instead a pure simulator, then ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* ∞ would be the case. Mathematicians would avoid this messy language and the possibility of confusion by not re-using the name Ĥ for both your partial decider and one based on pure simulation. Also, you are wrong about the cycles of states, but that's because you have no clue how a TM would simulate another TM. It's a rabbit hole we shouldn't go down, because (a) I don't think you could ever understand how a UTM really works, and (b) it's irrelevant since I agree that there would be infinite execution if Ĥ were not as it is but were, instead, a pure simulator. > When we define halting as reaching a final state Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. The computation reaches the final state Ĥ.qn. > so that we can unequivocally divide computations that complete from > those that are aborted, So this is today's equivocation. TM computations either halt or they don't halt. None of them "abort". > then we know that the input to Ĥ.qx never > halts, thus making its halt status decison correct. Garbled. Inputs don't halt or not halt. Your Ĥ does not meet Linz's spec because Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts when it should not. You don't get to say it does because it halts in what you think of as special way. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-11 21:03 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. |
| Message-ID | <BaednXQRjpr9HIn8nZ2dnUU7-SvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37808 |
On 8/11/2021 8:20 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 8/11/2021 6:04 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 8/11/2021 10:04 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>>> I went point by point. If I am actually incorrect then you can go
>>>>>> point by point and point out each individual error step by step.
>>>>> You fail at the first hurdle. You can't hope to persuade anyone that an
>>>>> add function with add(2, 3) == 9 is operating as specified simply by
>>>>> detailing, step by step, exactly how you implement the wrong behaviour.
>>>>> In your case, it's simply that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn (via Ĥ.qx
>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as you pointlessly keep insisting) when Linz says it should not.
>>>>> Your add function is entirely correct in that is does exactly what you
>>>>> intend it to do. As far as I am concerned there is no significant error
>>>>> in how you arrive at add(2, 3) == 9. The problem is that Linz says your
>>>>> code should add numbers and not do whatever it is your code does with
>>>>> 100% correctness. Do you follow?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course
>>>>>> everyone knows that this is impossible if I am totally correct.
>>>>> Then stop wasting time and try to publish! You'll need lots of time to
>>>>> explain away why every editor simply laughs at the paper.
>>>>>
>>>>>> H.q0 WM w ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>> becomes
>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>> Yes, we all know that. It's exactly why your Ĥ does not meet Linz's
>>>>> specification (for this case -- you don't claim to have a halt decider).
>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you admit when you are wrong when you really are wrong?
>>>>> Yes. I am wrong all the time. In this case I'm having trouble working
>>>>> out how I could be clearer about your Ĥ. Maybe if you didn't keep
>>>>> removing the key text from Linz's explanations it might sink in?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pages of the Linz text to verify the above quotes in their full context:
>>>> http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf
>>>>
>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H
>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H
>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H
>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H
>>> I see you are in "paste the same text" again mode. If you think I can
>>> help in any way, do let me know.
>>
>> I just noticed that you acknowledged that M refers to the TM
>> represented by the first input parameter to Ĥ.qx wM wM
>
> Did I? Oh dear. It's garbage. Where did I "acknowledge" it? I'd like
> to go back and point out that it's mathematical junk.
>
>> so we can move to the next point:
>>
>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>> if M applied to wM halts, and
>
> This is just a metaphorical math poem. You've taken a mathematical
> statement and substituted for only some on the occurrences of a
> variable. That is a schoolboy error.
>
That seems to be a very stupid thing to say when it only clarifies and
corrects Linz.
> Maybe you confused agreement with "can't be bothered to go of on a
> tangent about a math poem". I certainly let many meaningless things you
> write slip by unremarked upon. There are not enough hours in the day to
> point out all your mistakes.
>
>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn // see highlighted portion of Linz text
>> to confirm:
>> if M applied to wM does not halt // M refers to the TM of the first wM
>> parameter to Ĥ.qx
>
> Linz requires that
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
> if, and only if, Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt.
>
Sure and the Ĥ being referred to is the one that the first param to Ĥ.qx
⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ specifies.
> Unlike your garbage, this makes sense because all occurrences of M and
> the derived wM have now been substituted for actual values -- your Ĥ and
> its encoding.
>
>> Here is the overview of what I am claiming:
>> Turing machine Ĥ is applied to its input ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩
>
>> It copies this input such that this input and the copy of this input
>> become the first and second parameters to the simulating halt decider
>> at Ĥ.qx.
>
> ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>
>> When Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ decides that the simulation of its first parameter
>> on the input of its second parameter never halt it correctly
>> transitions to its own final state of Ĥ.qn.
>
> ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>
> None of which (other than your poor use of technical terms) has been in
> doubt for months.
>
You sure acted like M only referred to the first Ĥ shown below:
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
> if, and only if, Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt.
>> It is easy to see that when the halt decider at Ĥ.qx is a simulating
>> halt decider that there is an infinite cycle from Ĥ.qx to Ĥ.q0 that
>> prevents the input from every reaching its final state.
>
> If Ĥ were not written as you have chosen to write it -- if it were
> instead a pure simulator, then
>
> ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* ∞
>
This: Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
specifies an infinite cycle from Ĥ.qx to Ĥ.q0 while the simulating halt
decider at Ĥ.qx acts as a UTM.
> would be the case. Mathematicians would avoid this messy language and
> the possibility of confusion by not re-using the name Ĥ for both your
> partial decider and one based on pure simulation.
>
Since it is the very same machine in two different modes of operation
this seems really stupid.
This <is> the same Ĥ that Linz specifies with the extra detail of how
this wildcard state transition works: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
> Also, you are wrong about the cycles of states, but that's because you
> have no clue how a TM would simulate another TM.
No one ever investigates this because their paper on the subject would
be millions of pages long if it included a full listing of the source
code. If we add the single feature of random access memory TMs would be
100,000-fold less tedious.
> It's a rabbit hole we
> shouldn't go down, because (a) I don't think you could ever understand
> how a UTM really works, and (b) it's irrelevant since I agree that there
> would be infinite execution if Ĥ were not as it is but were, instead, a
> pure simulator.
>
Great. This is a big breakthrough.
>> When we define halting as reaching a final state
>
> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. The computation reaches the final state Ĥ.qn.
>
Yes. The halting problem is not about programs that halt. It is about
inputs to a halt decider. The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts.
>> so that we can unequivocally divide computations that complete from
>> those that are aborted,
>
> So this is today's equivocation. TM computations either halt or they
> don't halt. None of them "abort".
>
I am concurrently perfecting my understanding of the technical terms via
Linz. A TM can also be said to halt if there is no transition out of the
current state. Ultimately I only need a clear and unequivocal way to
divide computations that reach their natural conclusion from ones that
have had their simulation aborted.
>> then we know that the input to Ĥ.qx never
>> halts, thus making its halt status decison correct.
>
> Garbled. Inputs don't halt or not halt. Your Ĥ does not meet Linz's
> spec because Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts when it should not. You don't get
> to say it does because it halts in what you think of as special way.
>
That is like saying because we know the liar paradox: "this sentence is
not true" is not true then it must be true.
My purpose of creating the x86utm operating system was so that every
single detail of the halting problem counter-examples can be completely
examined.
It is perfectly analogous in every way to the Linz Ĥ.
We can see that int main() { P(P); } halts and that the input to H(P,P)
cannot possibly halt. That is a lot like finding a cat that barks.
No one besides me has ever bothered to examine every single detail of
H(P,P) to see that its input really cannot possibly halt.
They are all so egotistically caught up in their own opinion that the
fact that int main() { P(P); } halts proves that H(P,P)==0 must be
incorrect.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-12 21:09 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. |
| Message-ID | <875ywactmr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37811 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 8/11/2021 8:20 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 8/11/2021 6:04 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 8/11/2021 10:04 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>>>> I went point by point. If I am actually incorrect then you can go >>>>>>> point by point and point out each individual error step by step. >>>>>> You fail at the first hurdle. You can't hope to persuade anyone that an >>>>>> add function with add(2, 3) == 9 is operating as specified simply by >>>>>> detailing, step by step, exactly how you implement the wrong behaviour. >>>>>> In your case, it's simply that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn (via Ĥ.qx >>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as you pointlessly keep insisting) when Linz says it should not. >>>>>> Your add function is entirely correct in that is does exactly what you >>>>>> intend it to do. As far as I am concerned there is no significant error >>>>>> in how you arrive at add(2, 3) == 9. The problem is that Linz says your >>>>>> code should add numbers and not do whatever it is your code does with >>>>>> 100% correctness. Do you follow? >>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course >>>>>>> everyone knows that this is impossible if I am totally correct. >>>>>> Then stop wasting time and try to publish! You'll need lots of time to >>>>>> explain away why every editor simply laughs at the paper. >>>>>> >>>>>>> H.q0 WM w ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>> becomes >>>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn >>>>>> Yes, we all know that. It's exactly why your Ĥ does not meet Linz's >>>>>> specification (for this case -- you don't claim to have a halt decider). >>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you admit when you are wrong when you really are wrong? >>>>>> Yes. I am wrong all the time. In this case I'm having trouble working >>>>>> out how I could be clearer about your Ĥ. Maybe if you didn't keep >>>>>> removing the key text from Linz's explanations it might sink in? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Pages of the Linz text to verify the above quotes in their full context: >>>>> http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf >>>>> >>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >>>> I see you are in "paste the same text" again mode. If you think I can >>>> help in any way, do let me know. >>> >>> I just noticed that you acknowledged that M refers to the TM >>> represented by the first input parameter to Ĥ.qx wM wM >> Did I? Oh dear. It's garbage. Where did I "acknowledge" it? I'd like >> to go back and point out that it's mathematical junk. >> >>> so we can move to the next point: >>> >>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>> if M applied to wM halts, and >> This is just a metaphorical math poem. You've taken a mathematical >> statement and substituted for only some on the occurrences of a >> variable. That is a schoolboy error. > > That seems to be a very stupid thing to say when it only clarifies and > corrects Linz. I got about half way through a reply to this (and all the stuff that follows), but almost everything you said was wrong one way or another and I don't have time. Instead, I posted (yet again) the basic reason why you are wrong in another thread. If you think any of the comments you made here would really benefit from a response, point them out and see if I have time to reply. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-11 21:08 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben's key param agreement ] |
| Message-ID | <fN2dneG14c8TH4n8nZ2dnUU7-RfNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37808 |
On 8/11/2021 8:20 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 8/11/2021 6:04 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 8/11/2021 10:04 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>>>> I went point by point. If I am actually incorrect then you can go >>>>>> point by point and point out each individual error step by step. >>>>> You fail at the first hurdle. You can't hope to persuade anyone that an >>>>> add function with add(2, 3) == 9 is operating as specified simply by >>>>> detailing, step by step, exactly how you implement the wrong behaviour. >>>>> In your case, it's simply that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn (via Ĥ.qx >>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as you pointlessly keep insisting) when Linz says it should not. >>>>> Your add function is entirely correct in that is does exactly what you >>>>> intend it to do. As far as I am concerned there is no significant error >>>>> in how you arrive at add(2, 3) == 9. The problem is that Linz says your >>>>> code should add numbers and not do whatever it is your code does with >>>>> 100% correctness. Do you follow? >>>>> >>>>>> Of course >>>>>> everyone knows that this is impossible if I am totally correct. >>>>> Then stop wasting time and try to publish! You'll need lots of time to >>>>> explain away why every editor simply laughs at the paper. >>>>> >>>>>> H.q0 WM w ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>> becomes >>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn >>>>> Yes, we all know that. It's exactly why your Ĥ does not meet Linz's >>>>> specification (for this case -- you don't claim to have a halt decider). >>>>> >>>>>> Can you admit when you are wrong when you really are wrong? >>>>> Yes. I am wrong all the time. In this case I'm having trouble working >>>>> out how I could be clearer about your Ĥ. Maybe if you didn't keep >>>>> removing the key text from Linz's explanations it might sink in? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Pages of the Linz text to verify the above quotes in their full context: >>>> http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf >>>> >>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >>> I see you are in "paste the same text" again mode. If you think I can >>> help in any way, do let me know. >> >> I just noticed that you acknowledged that M refers to the TM >> represented by the first input parameter to Ĥ.qx wM wM > > Did I? Oh dear. It's garbage. Where did I "acknowledge" it? I'd like > to go back and point out that it's mathematical junk. > >> so we can move to the next point: >> >> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >> if M applied to wM halts, and > > This is just a metaphorical math poem. You've taken a mathematical > statement and substituted for only some on the occurrences of a > variable. That is a schoolboy error. > > Maybe you confused agreement with "can't be bothered to go of on a > tangent about a math poem". I certainly let many meaningless things you > write slip by unremarked upon. There are not enough hours in the day to > point out all your mistakes. > >> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn // see highlighted portion of Linz text >> to confirm: >> if M applied to wM does not halt // M refers to the TM of the first wM >> parameter to Ĥ.qx > > Linz requires that > > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn > if, and only if, Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. > > Unlike your garbage, this makes sense because all occurrences of M and > the derived wM have now been substituted for actual values -- your Ĥ and > its encoding. > >> Here is the overview of what I am claiming: >> Turing machine Ĥ is applied to its input ⟨Ĥ⟩. > > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ > >> It copies this input such that this input and the copy of this input >> become the first and second parameters to the simulating halt decider >> at Ĥ.qx. > > ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ > >> When Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ decides that the simulation of its first parameter >> on the input of its second parameter never halt it correctly >> transitions to its own final state of Ĥ.qn. > > ⊢* Ĥ.qn > > None of which (other than your poor use of technical terms) has been in > doubt for months. -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-11 17:32 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. |
| Message-ID | <sf1mm1$7o8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37798 |
On 8/11/2021 5:04 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H > > I see you are in "paste the same text" again mode. If you think I can > help in any way, do let me know. That's not nice. Aren't you afraid that he'll develop carpal tunnel syndrome? That along with all of his other deficiencies will surely do him in. Perhaps we can invent shortcuts a la LaTeX macros and font switches to help him cut down the strain. He wont be insulted and will take to it as a pig to mud. Just think, he'll have yet another notation to misuse and abuse. -- Jeff Barnett
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-11 18:40 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. |
| Message-ID | <yPSdnar5BfFpwon8nZ2dnUU7-WmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37801 |
On 8/11/2021 6:32 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote: > On 8/11/2021 5:04 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >> >> I see you are in "paste the same text" again mode. If you think I can >> help in any way, do let me know. > > That's not nice. Aren't you afraid that he'll develop carpal tunnel > syndrome? That along with all of his other deficiencies will surely do > him in. Perhaps we can invent shortcuts a la LaTeX macros and font > switches to help him cut down the strain. He wont be insulted and will > take to it as a pig to mud. Just think, he'll have yet another notation > to misuse and abuse. Ben finally acknowledged the point that I was making: Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ if M applied to wM halts, and Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn if M applied to wM does not halt // M refers to the TM of the first wM parameter to Ĥ.qx My proof requires a whole inference chain that cannot proceed to the next point until the current point is accepted as correct. -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-11 23:11 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. |
| Message-ID | <sf2ahv$17p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37802 |
On 8/11/2021 5:40 PM, olcott wrote: > On 8/11/2021 6:32 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote: >> On 8/11/2021 5:04 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >>> >>> I see you are in "paste the same text" again mode. If you think I can >>> help in any way, do let me know. >> >> That's not nice. Aren't you afraid that he'll develop carpal tunnel >> syndrome? That along with all of his other deficiencies will surely do >> him in. Perhaps we can invent shortcuts a la LaTeX macros and font >> switches to help him cut down the strain. He wont be insulted and will >> take to it as a pig to mud. Just think, he'll have yet another >> notation to misuse and abuse. > > Ben finally acknowledged the point that I was making: > > Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ > if M applied to wM halts, and > > Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn > if M applied to wM does not halt > > // M refers to the TM of the first wM parameter to Ĥ.qx > > My proof requires a whole inference chain that cannot proceed to the > next point until the current point is accepted as correct. In addition to carpal tunnel, you are delusional. I get the vague impression reading the above that you are having a schizoid episode. There is a complete and total discount between what others say to you and your replies. I suggest you cut out some of the examples you like best and show them to your therapist. You do have one, don't you? It may lead to better, more effective treatment. We are all hoping you get better but schizoid episodes are hard to suppress. I assume meds have been prescribed for your condition. Are you taking them? Or are you refusing medical help just as you refuse to allow Ben to heal your ignorance. A little trust in your betters will go a long way towards recovery and a cure. Start now before it's to late. God speed to you. -- Jeff Barnett
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-12 01:36 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. |
| Message-ID | <8ad649ce-6ce3-42b0-b38d-9bf9041201bfn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #37816 |
On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 06:11:30 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote: > On 8/11/2021 5:40 PM, olcott wrote: > > On 8/11/2021 6:32 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote: > >> On 8/11/2021 5:04 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: > >>> > >>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H > >>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H > >>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H > >>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H > >>> > >>> I see you are in "paste the same text" again mode. If you think I can > >>> help in any way, do let me know. > >> > >> That's not nice. Aren't you afraid that he'll develop carpal tunnel > >> syndrome? That along with all of his other deficiencies will surely do > >> him in. Perhaps we can invent shortcuts a la LaTeX macros and font > >> switches to help him cut down the strain. He wont be insulted and will > >> take to it as a pig to mud. Just think, he'll have yet another > >> notation to misuse and abuse. > > > > Ben finally acknowledged the point that I was making: > > > > Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ > > if M applied to wM halts, and > > > > Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn > > if M applied to wM does not halt > > > > // M refers to the TM of the first wM parameter to Ĥ.qx > > > > My proof requires a whole inference chain that cannot proceed to the > > next point until the current point is accepted as correct. > In addition to carpal tunnel, you are delusional. I get the vague > impression reading the above that you are having a schizoid episode. > There is a complete and total discount between what others say to you > and your replies. I suggest you cut out some of the examples you like > best and show them to your therapist. You do have one, don't you? It may > lead to better, more effective treatment. We are all hoping you get > better but schizoid episodes are hard to suppress. I assume meds have > been prescribed for your condition. Are you taking them? Or are you > refusing medical help just as you refuse to allow Ben to heal your > ignorance. A little trust in your betters will go a long way towards > recovery and a cure. Start now before it's to late. God speed to you. > - YOu might be right, but I think it's just frustration. His execution trace shows what appears to be an infinitely recursive process aborted, and everyone is just ignoring that and focusing on the other reality that his H does not return the result that matches the behaviour of the input when run independently. The attempt to use formal math notation when he doesn't understand it doesn't help. That can create the impression of mental incoherence, but in fact it's not that. Despite a mass of posting, we still don't have a good idea how H works. Academics answer questions about how their programs work. However there's also politeness. I once sat in a lecture where the lecturer was claiming marvellous properties for his substance - I think it was an ogliopeptide. I made the remark quietly to a friend "he'll be claiming it cures cancer next". Sure enough, we then heard a claim that the ogliopeptide had anti-cancer properties. I discussed it with my friend over lunch. We agreed that no-one believed him, and no-one said that. So I asked where the results came from. My friend said he suspected he was using extremely high concentrations and measuring marginal effects - in biochemical terms, that basically means that your results aren't meaningful. However, again, no-one said that. However if PO is ill, he should seek help.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-12 07:24 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. |
| Message-ID | <8KCdne11EaKajoj8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37817 |
On 8/12/2021 3:36 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 06:11:30 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>> On 8/11/2021 5:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/11/2021 6:32 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>> On 8/11/2021 5:04 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H
>>>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H
>>>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H
>>>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H
>>>>>
>>>>> I see you are in "paste the same text" again mode. If you think I can
>>>>> help in any way, do let me know.
>>>>
>>>> That's not nice. Aren't you afraid that he'll develop carpal tunnel
>>>> syndrome? That along with all of his other deficiencies will surely do
>>>> him in. Perhaps we can invent shortcuts a la LaTeX macros and font
>>>> switches to help him cut down the strain. He wont be insulted and will
>>>> take to it as a pig to mud. Just think, he'll have yet another
>>>> notation to misuse and abuse.
>>>
>>> Ben finally acknowledged the point that I was making:
>>>
>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>> if M applied to wM halts, and
>>>
>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>> if M applied to wM does not halt
>>>
>>> // M refers to the TM of the first wM parameter to Ĥ.qx
>>>
>>> My proof requires a whole inference chain that cannot proceed to the
>>> next point until the current point is accepted as correct.
>> In addition to carpal tunnel, you are delusional. I get the vague
>> impression reading the above that you are having a schizoid episode.
>> There is a complete and total discount between what others say to you
>> and your replies. I suggest you cut out some of the examples you like
>> best and show them to your therapist. You do have one, don't you? It may
>> lead to better, more effective treatment. We are all hoping you get
>> better but schizoid episodes are hard to suppress. I assume meds have
>> been prescribed for your condition. Are you taking them? Or are you
>> refusing medical help just as you refuse to allow Ben to heal your
>> ignorance. A little trust in your betters will go a long way towards
>> recovery and a cure. Start now before it's to late. God speed to you.
>> -
> YOu might be right, but I think it's just frustration. His execution trace shows
> what appears to be an infinitely recursive process aborted, and everyone is
> just ignoring that and focusing on the other reality that his H does not
> return the result that matches the behaviour of the input when run independently.
>
> The attempt to use formal math notation when he doesn't understand it
> doesn't help. That can create the impression of mental incoherence, but in fact
> it's not that.
>
> Despite a mass of posting, we still don't have a good idea how H works.
_P()
[00000d02](01) 55 push ebp
[00000d03](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000d05](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00000d08](01) 50 push eax // push 2nd Param
[00000d09](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000d0c](01) 51 push ecx // push 1st Param
[00000d0d](05) e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H
[00000d12](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00000d15](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[00000d17](02) 7402 jz 00000d1b
[00000d19](02) ebfe jmp 00000d19
[00000d1b](01) 5d pop ebp
[00000d1c](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [00000d1c]
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= =============
...[00000d0d][00101829][00000d12] e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:d02
...[00000d02][002118f1][002118f5] 55 push ebp
...[00000d03][002118f1][002118f5] 8bec mov ebp,esp
...[00000d05][002118f1][002118f5] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
...[00000d08][002118ed][00000d02] 50 push eax // push P
...[00000d09][002118ed][00000d02] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
...[00000d0c][002118e9][00000d02] 51 push ecx // push P
...[00000d0d][002118e5][00000d12] e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H
...[00000d02][0025c319][0025c31d] 55 push ebp
...[00000d03][0025c319][0025c31d] 8bec mov ebp,esp
...[00000d05][0025c319][0025c31d] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
...[00000d08][0025c315][00000d02] 50 push eax // push P
...[00000d09][0025c315][00000d02] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
...[00000d0c][0025c311][00000d02] 51 push ecx // push P
...[00000d0d][0025c30d][00000d12] e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
If this means that you are telling me that:
(1) You know the x86 language very well.
(2) Can't begin to understand why P would be stuck in infinitely nested
simulation while H acts as a pure simulator?
I would say that you must be a liar.
> Academics answer questions about how their programs work. However there's
> also politeness. I once sat in a lecture where the lecturer was claiming
> marvellous properties for his substance - I think it was an ogliopeptide.
> I made the remark quietly to a friend "he'll be claiming it cures cancer next".
> Sure enough, we then heard a claim that the ogliopeptide had anti-cancer
> properties. I discussed it with my friend over lunch. We agreed that no-one
> believed him, and no-one said that. So I asked where the results came from.
> My friend said he suspected he was using extremely high concentrations and
> measuring marginal effects - in biochemical terms, that basically means that
> your results aren't meaningful. However, again, no-one said that.
>
> However if PO is ill, he should seek help.
>
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-12 08:40 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. |
| Message-ID | <506a884f-827d-4d3a-abfc-e92dfd73500bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #37828 |
On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 13:24:46 UTC+1, olcott wrote: > On 8/12/2021 3:36 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 06:11:30 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote: > >> On 8/11/2021 5:40 PM, olcott wrote: > >>> On 8/11/2021 6:32 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote: > >>>> On 8/11/2021 5:04 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: > >>>>> > >>>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H > >>>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H > >>>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H > >>>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H > >>>>> > >>>>> I see you are in "paste the same text" again mode. If you think I can > >>>>> help in any way, do let me know. > >>>> > >>>> That's not nice. Aren't you afraid that he'll develop carpal tunnel > >>>> syndrome? That along with all of his other deficiencies will surely do > >>>> him in. Perhaps we can invent shortcuts a la LaTeX macros and font > >>>> switches to help him cut down the strain. He wont be insulted and will > >>>> take to it as a pig to mud. Just think, he'll have yet another > >>>> notation to misuse and abuse. > >>> > >>> Ben finally acknowledged the point that I was making: > >>> > >>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ > >>> if M applied to wM halts, and > >>> > >>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn > >>> if M applied to wM does not halt > >>> > >>> // M refers to the TM of the first wM parameter to Ĥ.qx > >>> > >>> My proof requires a whole inference chain that cannot proceed to the > >>> next point until the current point is accepted as correct. > >> In addition to carpal tunnel, you are delusional. I get the vague > >> impression reading the above that you are having a schizoid episode. > >> There is a complete and total discount between what others say to you > >> and your replies. I suggest you cut out some of the examples you like > >> best and show them to your therapist. You do have one, don't you? It may > >> lead to better, more effective treatment. We are all hoping you get > >> better but schizoid episodes are hard to suppress. I assume meds have > >> been prescribed for your condition. Are you taking them? Or are you > >> refusing medical help just as you refuse to allow Ben to heal your > >> ignorance. A little trust in your betters will go a long way towards > >> recovery and a cure. Start now before it's to late. God speed to you. > >> - > > YOu might be right, but I think it's just frustration. His execution trace shows > > what appears to be an infinitely recursive process aborted, and everyone is > > just ignoring that and focusing on the other reality that his H does not > > return the result that matches the behaviour of the input when run independently. > > > > The attempt to use formal math notation when he doesn't understand it > > doesn't help. That can create the impression of mental incoherence, but in fact > > it's not that. > > > > Despite a mass of posting, we still don't have a good idea how H works. > _P() > [00000d02](01) 55 push ebp > [00000d03](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp > [00000d05](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] > [00000d08](01) 50 push eax // push 2nd Param > [00000d09](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] > [00000d0c](01) 51 push ecx // push 1st Param > [00000d0d](05) e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H > [00000d12](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 > [00000d15](02) 85c0 test eax,eax > [00000d17](02) 7402 jz 00000d1b > [00000d19](02) ebfe jmp 00000d19 > [00000d1b](01) 5d pop ebp > [00000d1c](01) c3 ret > Size in bytes:(0027) [00000d1c] > machine stack stack machine assembly > address address data code language > ======== ======== ======== ========= ============= > ...[00000d0d][00101829][00000d12] e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H > > Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:d02 > ...[00000d02][002118f1][002118f5] 55 push ebp > ...[00000d03][002118f1][002118f5] 8bec mov ebp,esp > ...[00000d05][002118f1][002118f5] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] > ...[00000d08][002118ed][00000d02] 50 push eax // push P > ...[00000d09][002118ed][00000d02] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] > ...[00000d0c][002118e9][00000d02] 51 push ecx // push P > ...[00000d0d][002118e5][00000d12] e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H > > ...[00000d02][0025c319][0025c31d] 55 push ebp > ...[00000d03][0025c319][0025c31d] 8bec mov ebp,esp > ...[00000d05][0025c319][0025c31d] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] > ...[00000d08][0025c315][00000d02] 50 push eax // push P > ...[00000d09][0025c315][00000d02] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] > ...[00000d0c][0025c311][00000d02] 51 push ecx // push P > ...[00000d0d][0025c30d][00000d12] e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H > Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped > If this means that you are telling me that: > (1) You know the x86 language very well. > > (2) Can't begin to understand why P would be stuck in infinitely nested > simulation while H acts as a pure simulator? > OK, so let's start. There's a line which says "Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:d02". Is that part of the execution trace, or is it a commented added by hand? If it is part of the execution trace, why doesn't this line appear before the second line with the label 0d02? > > I would say that you must be a liar. > I have a PhD. PhD holder attach a very high value to honesty, in particular with respect to their subjects. But also more generally. I always draw attention if I'm given too much change at the pub, for example, not becaue I'm better than other people, but because I'm a doctor, and a doctor can't be seen to take money that doesn't belong to him.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 18 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 … 27 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web